David Young

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police discovered 296 oxycodone pills and cash in a vehicle.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months emphasizing general deterrence due to the severe impact of opioid trafficking in Northwestern Ontario communities.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the offender’s lack of criminal record, significant personal hardships, demonstrated rehabilitation, and positive prospects for employment and education.

Applying the principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the conditional sentence framework in s. 742.1, the court concluded that a community-based sentence with strict conditions would sufficiently address denunciation and deterrence while supporting rehabilitation.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by probation was imposed.

Following dismissal of a complex multi‑party action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of the entire action in addition to agreed costs of the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff argued that costs submissions should be limited to the motion and that delay in bringing the motion inflated the defendants’ legal fees.

The court held that where summary judgment disposes of the entire action, the court may fix costs of the entire proceeding, treating the motion similarly to a trial judgment.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the defendants’ claimed partial‑indemnity costs by 25% to align with what would have been the plaintiff’s reasonable expectations in a large and technically complex case.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical company stored vaccines with a logistics provider under a master services agreement requiring the plaintiff to obtain all‑risk property insurance covering the stored goods and naming the warehouse operator as an additional insured.

After a refrigeration malfunction allegedly rendered the vaccines unsellable, the plaintiff commenced a subrogated action against the warehouse operator and various contractors responsible for the cooling and monitoring system.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The court held that the covenant to insure constituted an allocation of risk whereby the plaintiff assumed the risk of loss to the goods and thereby barred tort claims against the warehouse operator for that loss.

The court further held that the covenant extended to contractors and related parties with an identity of interest in the performance of the contract.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and all cross‑claims.

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.